The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States,None of your arguments mean anything until you can be honest enough to admit this says her citizenship is due to birth to citizen parents. You're desperately trying to create a game of connect irrelevant dots, but NONE of it disputes this one, simple direct quote. Again, YOU CANNOT GET AROUND THIS.
“None of your arguments mean anything until you can be honest enough to admit this says her citizenship is due to birth to citizen parents.”
No. She could have been naturalized, and the result would have been the same - no right to vote. She could have been what birthers call a 14th Amendment citizen - a distinction no court makes - but the result of the case would have been identical - no right to vote.
In this case, she also met the narrowest possible definition of NBC, so the court didn’t go any further to examine the limits - as it expressly stated in the opinion. It just didn’t matter. The outcome would have been identical as long as she met ANY possible definition of citizenship, and thus it was not a case about citizenship, but voting rights.
I’ve never met a birther who claimed citizen parents were required to be born a citizen. Do you now make that claim?